Re: Free Art License
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on
> where recipients can access the original artwork.
>
> (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
>
> The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be primarily a
> form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
> However, it may be overbroad. Convince me. Perhaps keeping track of the
> movements of the Mona Lisa as it's sold to different museums *is*
> unreasonable.
Especially since it could be stolen. On the other hand, it is important
for a free piece of physical artwork that it be publically accessible;
the one who has power over the license (the Louvre, I guess) would also
have to make sure that, when it is sold, it will not end up in a private
house.
>> - The Original (the work's source or resource) :
>> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
>> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
>> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
> (Incidentally, I have no idea what "of its partition" means here. "Its
> program" seems designed to refer to dance or theatre works.)
I've seen "partition" used in a cover text of a music CD, it seems to
refer to the score of music for the orchestra. It might be a
false-friend like translation, in german a music score for many
instruments is called "partitur".
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: